Post Number: 281
|Posted on Sunday, February 08, 2009 - 12:16 am: ||
Imagine a concrete ship 320' long, 44' wide, and 32' deep. I would have been quite reluctant to sign onto such a vessel as a crew member. Probably an irrational reaction then and now but intuition says concrete is not a proper material for something that is supposed to float.
Post Number: 89
|Posted on Sunday, February 08, 2009 - 02:12 pm: ||
Pretty innovative for 1917! The civil engineering departments at various universities still have contests to design, construct and race concrete canoes. Lightweight & high strength concrete, air-entrained, etc. Concrete Toboggan races also for those of us who are blessed with this white stuff on the ground.
Post Number: 11
|Posted on Sunday, February 08, 2009 - 03:38 pm: ||
Google has several sites about concrete ships. One is: http://www.unmuseum.org/concrete.htm
I played on one of several beached in Alameda, California in the 1930's. The remains of one is visible in Galveston Bay. It was home to a hermit for several years.
Post Number: 717
|Posted on Sunday, February 08, 2009 - 04:33 pm: ||
There was a large WWI shipyard on the south bank of the Pisquatiqau(SP) river in Portsmouth, NH. I well remember there were five or six of the WWI concrete ships still standing there in 1942-1945 in various stages of construction. They were really welded steel rod baskets with concrete poured in continuous forms. I think one hull was finished and all the rest were in various stages or erection. There were large trees growing all around them and it was obvious nothing had been done probably since WWI. This type hull must have been pretty good because a lot of breakwaters etc. have been built using them.
They were in no way like the Ferro Cement hulls which have been built post WWII. Those hulls I have seen "completed" are really better than any other hull material in my opinion. Note the word "completed" too many ferro cement home builders ran out of steam before they got to the plastering stage.